Zimbabwe: Consular, Passport and Visa Services

Baroness Park of Monmouth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In view of the recent revision of Zimbabwe legislation on the exchange rate, whether the British High Commission in Harare will continue to require persons applying for United Kingdom passports or visas to pay at the parallel, rather than the official, rate.

Baroness Amos: Our High Commission in Zimbabwe continues to set fees for consular, passport and visa services using the parallel rate of exchange. This practice is reviewed regularly to ensure it complies with Zimbabwean law.

North Korea

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy towards North Korea.

Baroness Amos: Her Majesty's Government deplore North Korea's stated intention to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. FCO officials summoned the DPRK charge d'affaires on 10 January to protest against recent actions by North Korea, and we continue to express our concerns to the DPRK Government via our ambassador in Pyongyang. Her Majesty's Government intend to remain engaged with North Korea; to maintain educational and human rights training programmes for North Korean officials; and to maintain humanitarian assistance to the people of North Korea. Technical assistance and trade promotion activities have been suspended until North Korea demonstrates a willingness to become a responsible member of the international community.

Afghanistan: Security

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by Lord Bach on 17 December 2002 (WA101) that "Security in Afghanistan is primarily the responsibility of the Afghans themselves", whether they consider the Afghan administration to be capable of meeting that responsibility effectively at present; and, if not, when they envisage that it will be able to do so.

Baroness Amos: The Afghan authorities are making progress towards being able to meet their own security requirements. We believe that the best way to help them achieve this is by supporting demobilisation and disarmament of militias, building an accountable and multi-ethnic national army and police force under democratic control, stamping out the drugs trade and rebuilding the legal system. But this is a long-term process requiring the help of the international community. It is not possible at this stage to determine an exact date by which it will be complete.

British Council: Works of Art Exhibitions

Lord Desai: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many indemnity undertakings were given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of loss or damage to works of art loaned to the British Council for exhibitions overseas for the six-month period ended September 2002; and what was the value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings which remained outstanding at that date.

Baroness Amos: The British Council, although not a government department, receives a substantial grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The council regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from national galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.
	In the six month period ended 30 September 2002, the British Council provided such assurances to seven national lenders and undertakings to 156 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as at 30 September 2002 in respect of national lenders was £181,233,500 and £158,734,660 in respect of private lenders; these were, for the most part, attributable to the Constable exhibition which opened in Paris on 7 October. The exhibition closed on 13 January 2003.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act Powers of Detention

Lord Archer of Sandwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to continue the powers of detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A draft order to continue the powers of detention in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 for a further 12 months has today been laid before Parliament. It will be debated by both Houses of Parliament early in March.
	Where terrorism is concerned, our paramount responsibility is to ensure public safety and national security. So long as the present public emergency subsists, where a person is suspected of terrorism of the sort which led to 11 September 2001 and is considered to be a threat to national security but cannot currently be removed—and for whom a criminal prosecution is not an option—we believe that it is necessary and proportionate to provide for extended detention, pending removal. The person would be free to leave the UK if he wished to do so.
	The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld our position on the need for these detention powers last October. The court agreed that the detention powers are not discriminatory and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21–23) Order 2003 provides for the continuation of the immigration powers under Part IV of the 2001 Act to certify, and to detain pending removal, suspected international terrorists, subject to safeguards. The continuation is from 14 March 2003 until 13 March 2004.
	Of the 15 foreign nationals who have so far been detained using the powers under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 13 remain in detention.
	The decisions of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to certify and detain these individuals were made on the basis of detailed and compelling evidence. That evidence will be examined by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission when the individuals' appeals are held, as provided for under the Act. The commission is equivalent to the High Court. It has the power to overturn the certificates which the Home Secretary has issued in respect of those detained.
	The detention powers in Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act are a cornerstone of the UK's anti-terrorism measures. It is essential that we are able to take firm, swift action against those who threaten the safety of this country.

Terrorism Act 2000, Part VII

Lord Archer of Sandwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will lay before Parliament the report by Lord Carlile of Berriew into the operation of Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has completed the report on the operation of Part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000, which will be laid before the House today.

Defence Logistic Organisation: Temporary Deployable Accommodation

Lord Naseby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any cost savings arising from commonality between the Defence Logistic Organisation and the temporary deployable accommodation have been assessed.

Lord Bach: In assessing the whole life costs of solutions to meet the temporary deployable accommodation requirement, the investment appraisal has taken account of any potential commonality with in-service equipment supported by the Defence Logistic Organisation.

Light Forces Anti-Tank Guided Weapon

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which company has been selected as the prime contractor for the light forces anti-tank guided weapon.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence has selected the Javelin weapon system, produced by a joint venture of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, as the preferred solution to the requirement for a new light forces anti-tank guided weapon (LF ATGW). This follows a rigorous and comprehensive assessment phase which included comparative live-firing trials between Javelin and the Spike system (offered by Rafael and MBDA). Taking all of these factors into account Javelin provides the best overall solution to our LF ATGW requirement in terms of risk, affordability, operational effectiveness and value for money.
	Javelin, which is already in service with the United States Army, will provide the British Army with a significantly improved capability when it replaces the existing Milan system. The weapon system is highly manoeuvrable and man-portable and is capable of destroying the most advanced tanks and armoured vehicles at ranges up to 2.5km.
	The contract, subject to satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, will be placed shortly. It will be worth over £300 million and is expected to create or sustain over 300 jobs across the United Kingdom in a diverse range of manufacturing companies.

Ex-Service Personnel: Rough Sleepers

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What research they have undertaken to determine how many homeless persons living on the streets have at some stage been discharged from, or have chosen to leave, the Armed Forces

Lord Rooker: No specific research has been undertaken. However, the Social Exclusion Unit's report on Rough Sleeping (published in July 1998) highlighted that repeated studies had found that between a quarter and one-fifth of rough sleepers had been in the services at some stage. More recently, a non-representative survey of around 1,500 single homeless people who were in contact with agencies in one week in November 2002 found that a small minority of single homeless people had a forces background (5 per cent).

Midlands Co-operative Society: Planning Decision

Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action has been taken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the light of comments made by Lord Justice Schiemann, in refusing an application by the Midlands Co-operative Society for permission to appeal against a decision of the High Court not to quash a decision of the Deputy Prime Minister to allow the construction of a superstore directly opposite that of the society at Thurmaston, that the society's real complaint was of maladministration.

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister does not consider that he has been guilty of maladministration in this case. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister informed the Midlands Co-operative Society of this view in September 2002. Therefore no action has been taken in response to the comments made by Lord Justice Schiemann. However, as set out in last year's planning Green Paper he is committed to improving the handling of called in planning applications and recovered appeals.

Midlands Co-operative Society: Planning Decision

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration they are giving, or propose to give, to compensating the Midlands Co-operative Society for losses incurred as a result of the construction of a superstore directly opposite that of the Society at Thurmaston, permitted by the Deputy Prime Minister against the recommendation of his inspector, in the light of comments made by Lord Justice Schiemann, in refusing an application by the society for permission to appeal against a decision of the High Court not to quash the decision of the Deputy Prime Minister, that the society's real complaint was of maladministration.

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister does not consider that he has been guilty of maladministration in this case. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister informed the Midlands Co-operative Society of this view in September 2002. Therefore it would not be appropriate or necessary to compensate the Midlands Co-operative Society for any issues incurred as a result of the new superstore at Thurmaston.

Special Educational Needs

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many children are currently identified as having special educational needs.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Across all schools in January 2002 there were 248,982 pupils with statements of special educational needs and 1,401,995 pupils with special educational needs without statements.

Special Educational Needs

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions they have had with local authorities about the adequacy of provision of special schools in relation to parents' demand for places for children with special educational needs.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Under Section 14(6)(b) of the Education Act 1996, local education authorities are under a duty to secure special education provision for pupils with special educational needs. The organisation of school provision in a local education authority area, including the balance between mainstream and special schools, is a matter for the authority itself. Proposals to make changes to school provision are decided by the local school organisation committee or, where they cannot agree, the school adjudicator. Officials do discuss provision in special schools with local authorities, in response to their requests for advice, where an Ofsted inspection shows that some aspects of an authority's arrangements for education are found to be inadequate or where an authority has failed to comply with the terms of a statement of special educational need.
	The Government believe that special schools play a vital role in supporting pupils with special educational needs. However, it is also important that local authorities and the schools themselves recognise that that role is changing and needs to become more outwardly-focused to reflect the general principle in the SEN code of practice that the special educational needs of pupils will normally be met in mainstream schools or settings. Last summer I commissioned a sub-group of the Ministerial SEN Working Group to advise me on how the role of special schools might develop within this inclusive framework. I am due to receive that report shortly and will ensure that the noble Lord receives a copy.

Special Educational Needs

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many special schools catered for children with special educational needs 10 years ago; how many there are today; and how many face closure.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: At January 2002 there were 1,098 maintained special schools and 63 non-maintained special schools in England. This compares with 1,274 and 78 respectively in 1992. Since January 2002, 16 special schools have closed, 17 special schools are proposed to close and 18 special schools have opened. In addition to maintained and non-maintained special schools, there are currently 225 independent schools where the register consists mainly or wholly of pupils with special educational needs (SEN). Of these schools 89 have approved status. An equivalent figure for 1992 is not available.
	In January 2002, some 36 per cent of the 248,982 pupils with statements of SEN were in maintained or non-maintained special schools compared with 52 per cent of the 160,759 pupils with statements of SEN in 1992.

Hunting

Lord Mancroft: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had any prior knowledge about a letter to Labour Members of Parliament from veterinary adviser Bill Swann urging them to support the Hunting Bill.

Lord Whitty: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had no prior knowledge for the letter.

Hunting

Lord Mancroft: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the registrar proposed in the Hunting Bill will be able to take into account pre-emptive control of pests as opposed to reactive control.

Lord Whitty: The proposal in the Hunting Bill is to establish a system for making case-by-case decisions on whether hunting activities may take place to ensure that unnecessary suffering is prevented. An applicant would have to show evidence—which could cover any factor he wished the registrar to consider—that both the tests of utility and cruelty are met in the case of the particular hunting proposed. The registrar will determine, on the basis of an objective assessment of all the evidence provided by both the applicant and the animal welfare body, whether the proposed hunting satisfies the two tests.

Hunting

Baroness Golding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the evidence submitted to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on hunting will be made available on computer disk.

Lord Whitty: We have placed in the Library of the House a complete verbatim transcript of the hearings held on 9, 10 and 11 September 2002, in Portcullis House. Also in the Library are copies of the papers of evidence submitted by the witnesses at the hearings. All this information is available on Defra's website.
	The 194 letters from organisations or individual hunts in response to my right honourable friend the Minister for Rural Affairs' letter of 31 May 2002 are also available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Members of the public may view the responses in Defra's headquarters library. Copies of the responses will shortly be available on computer disk.

Animal Movements Regime

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will report on any changes to the animal movements regime in England and Wales.

Lord Whitty: The Government propose—subject to satisfactory further consultations with the livestock industry—to make significant changes to the animal movements regime in England and Wales with effect from 4 March 2003:
	a reduction of the 20-day whole farm standstill to six days for cattle, sheep and goats but with far fewer exemptions;
	a joint commitment by government and the industry to a package of measures to improve the level of biosecurity and disease surveillance; and
	a readiness to increase the length of the standstill back to 20 days if the disease threat increases.
	Scottish Ministers will be considering the Scottish position in the light of this announcement.
	The Standstill Regime
	Since the end of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak animal movement controls have been in place, underpinned by a 20-day standstill period for premises following the arrival of incoming animals. These controls were imposed on the basis of strong veterinary and scientific advice.
	There have been successive relaxations and exemptions from the 20-day regime in England and Wales and separately in Scotland, notably a system of isolation or separation for incoming animals, in order to meet industry concerns about the costs imposed by the standstill rule.
	Recommendations of the Independent Inquiries
	The two independent inquiries into FMD—the Lessons Learned and Royal Society inquiries—reporting in July 2002 endorsed the retention of the 20-day standstill on disease control grounds until such time as the Government had carried out a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis of the impact of different standstill periods.
	As a result, Defra commissioned two interrelated assessments:
	a risk assessment of the impact of different standstills on the silent spread of the disease, before it is known to be in the country;
	a cost-benefit analysis of the cost to the industry and disease control benefit to GB as a whole of different standstills.
	Separately Defra had already commissioned a risk assessment of the probability of disease reaching GB livestock either from illegal imports or from meat imported legally from third countries; emerging results from that risk assessment were also relevant to this work.
	In their response to the FMD inquiries the Government said they would draw on the emerging findings from these studies to inform a decision on the movement regime for spring 2003 because of the significant numbers of animal movements that take place at that time of year.
	Emerging Findings from the Risk Assessments
	These risk assessment and cost-benefit studies have been tackling novel and complex problems in a relatively short time. The emerging findings do not provide unequivocal answers to the questions posed.
	Nonetheless, on animal movements the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis provide evidence for four conclusions. First, they suggest that standstill rules can play a useful part in limiting the spread of foot and mouth disease during the period before its presence in the country has been identified. Secondly, however, initial disease spread is likely to be dominated by early animal movements over which standstills have limited impact and by other spread mechanisms which they do not affect. Standstills therefore appear to have rather less effect than might have been anticipated in confining outbreaks to local areas. Thirdly, in disease spread terms, in the majority of scenarios the differential benefit between a six and a 20-day standstill is relatively small and in cost-benefit terms a six-day standstill is more effective in most (but not all) scenarios. And fourthly and perhaps most important, the model shows that the key factor affecting the ultimate scale of an outbreak is the time to detection of disease, not the length of standstill.
	The Government's Conclusions
	The Government's veterinary and scientific advisers do not consider that the currently emerging conclusions from the movements risk assessment are sufficiently robust definitively to determine the optimum length of standstill period. However, the balance of view of the experts in risk assessment is that, while the second phase of the risk assessment work should continue to the end of May 2003 as planned, there is unlikely to be a significantly better basis on which to make a decision about the standstill then than is available now. The Government therefore are faced with making a decision now on the evidence available to them balancing scientific, veterinary, economic and other factors.
	The Government consider in the light of the evidence that a standstill period provides a valuable long-term element in the movement regime. The emerging results from the cost-benefit analysis suggest a reasonably robust cost-benefit case for a six-day standstill (compared with no standstill). But, bearing in mind the uncertainties on the movements risk assessment, the emerging results cannot at this stage provide a robust conclusion on whether or not the economic benefits of 20-day standstill (net of costs) are greater, or less, than for six days. The results do however strongly indicate that it is equally important to address factors such as disease surveillance, biosecurity standards on farms, in markets and in the transport of livestock, and above all efforts to raise awareness and commitment in the livestock community to reporting suspicion of disease.
	It is recognised that an early move to reduce the standstill from 20 to six days would carry some risks. However, the Government have concluded that the best approach is to put in place a standstill of six days for cattle, sheep and goats with effect from early March, provided that over the next couple of weeks the industry demonstrates a commitment to an effective programme of controls and further work to improve disease detection and biosecurity. If we are to go beyond the most precautionary approach, there must be a real gain to be had from doing so. The 20-day standstill will remain in place for pigs.
	Measures to Improve Disease Detection and Biosecurity
	The change Ministers are announcing today is therefore dependent on the adoption of an accompanying package of measures by early March, the main points of which are:
	a responsibility will be placed on lorry drivers, farmers and others to ensure that they, and the exterior of their vehicles, are clean when entering livestock markets;
	livestock market operators will be required to sign a formal undertaking to comply with strict operating procedures;
	there will have to be complete separation in time and space between dedicated slaughter markets and other livestock markets.
	At the same time, most of the additional controls over the cleansing and disinfection of livestock vehicles introduced following the FMD outbreak will be maintained and the current requirements for standards of biosecurity in markets will be maintained and kept under review. The Government are also introducing new rules for the individual identification of sheep and goats from 1 February.
	The Government will also tackle non-compliance more systematically by removing farmers' right to move animals under general licence if they break the rules; and put in place a joint campaign with the industry to promote high levels of compliance and accepted tough treatment of those breaking the rules.
	The Government will consult on the following proposals for possible introduction later in the year:
	the introduction of revised FMD biosecurity guidance by 1 July 2003, as required under the Animal Health Act 2002;
	a ban on animals being kept on market premises overnight;
	a requirement for all vehicles to be cleansed and disinfected before leaving markets and abattoirs;
	a requirement for market operators to ensure that a vet attends every market;
	a requirement for farmers to consult a vet at least annually for advice about disease detection, biosecurity and farm health plans.
	The Government will commission further work into the impact of dealers on the pattern of livestock movements and the options for controls; and the possibility of imposing a distance limit of (say) 150km on the movement of animals through markets or of making such moves subject to special licences.
	In addition, government will work with industry, the veterinary profession and farm assurance schemes on a package of education and best practice guidance, covering in particular the recognition and reporting of disease and the encouragement of farm health plans covering disease surveillance, biosecurity and movement records.
	There would also need to be a commitment that the industry will engage constructively in consultations on the delivery of the animal health and welfare strategy and on future systems of risk sharing between government and the industry of the costs of animal disease.
	At the same time, the Government recognise the need to maintain and enhance their efforts to minimise the risk of an FMD outbreak posed by illegal imports of meat and animal products, building on the illegal imports action plan and the conclusions of the risk assessment on illegal imports. We intend to consult further with stakeholders on a revised and updated version of the action plan.
	Return to the 20-day Standstill if Risk Increases
	The Government will also put in place arrangements—along the lines recommended by the Royal Society Report—for triggering a 20-day standstill should the threat of disease increase or the evidence base otherwise changes so as to justify a longer standstill, or if there is significant non-compliance with the new or existing biosecurity provisions. The regulations setting out the move to a six-day standstill will have an expiry date of 31 July 2003, so that the position can be reviewed at the end of May.
	The Government are publishing a summary document describing the emerging findings from the risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis and the advice we have received on them from peer reviewers and from our veterinary, scientific and economic advisers. It will also set out more fully the proposed new measures on detection and biosecurity. Detailed reports on the risk assessments from the external contractors will be published within the next couple of weeks when quality assurance is complete.

NHS Consultants

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have for a new framework of measures to improve rewards for National Health Service consultants and modernise medical careers in England.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is today announcing proposals for a new framework of measures to improve rewards for National Health Service consultants and modernise medical careers in England. Copies of the proposed new framework have been placed in the Printed Paper Office.
	The new framework involves using the extra resources that the Department of Health had previously set aside for implementation of a new consultants' contract (rising to some £250 million by 2005–06) to achieve the continued objective of giving greater rewards to consultants who do most for NHS patients and reforming the way the NHS delivers patient care.
	To ensure that this extra investment delivers improvements in NHS consultant capacity, productivity and value for money—and helps reform ways of working—there will be a national framework within which local health services will have a choice of investing in local implementation of the contract negotiated with the British Medical Association in June 2002, where there is a high level of local consultant support; investing in new annual incentives for consultants who make the biggest contribution to improving patient care; and investing extra resources in the new system of clinical excellence awards that is due to be introduced from April 2004.
	Within this framework, NHS trusts, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities will be asked to deploy the available resources in ways that most effectively support local priorities for improving the efficiency, quality and responsiveness of patient care.
	The new framework will be accompanied by new standards for consultant job planning to help provide more varied and flexible medical careers and a more productive, collaborative approach to planning and reviewing consultants' work for the NHS. There will also be new standards governing the relationship between private practice and NHS work to improve transparency and prevent any potential conflicts of interest. Consultants will need to meet these standards to be eligible for the new incentive payments and to demonstrate that they are meeting the standards expected under the new clinical excellence award scheme.
	In line with the objective of supporting medical careers, the department will be introducing on a phased basis a new system of sabbaticals for consultants. Initially, by 2005–06 funding will be made available to enable around 800 consultants each year to have sabbaticals of around two to three months, with coverage extending as workforce capacity expands.
	The department will also be working closely with the medical royal colleges to modernise medical training, recruitment and career structures. Reforming medical careers in this way will help deliver in a more effective way the treatment patients need most and enable doctors to develop their skills to the full.

Teacher Training Qualifications:Irish Republic

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 15 January (WA47) concerning teacher training qualifications, what are the qualifications that are sometimes additionally required in order that teachers trained in the United Kingdom can teach in the Irish Republic.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Teachers in primary schools, second level teachers in Gaeltacht schools and teachers who are required to teach through the medium of Irish must satisfy the Department of Education and Science in the Republic of Ireland that they are competent to teach the Irish language before being granted full recognition to teach in mainstream classes in national schools. Teachers trained in any other member state of the European Union whose qualifications have been assessed and accepted by the Department of Education and Science in the Republic of Ireland but who do not possess an appropriate Irish language qualification are granted a five-year period of provisional recognition to teach in national schools.
	Applicants for posts in voluntary secondary schools whose teacher training courses have not adequately covered the history and structure of the Irish education system aspect are required by the registration council to study for and undertake a written examination.
	The Joint Teacher Qualifications Working Group, established under the Belfast agreement, is examining the issue of teacher qualification, including the issue of additional fees, in the context of teacher mobility. The issue will also be considered by the General Teaching Councils for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with representatives of the Republic of Ireland (which is still in the process of establishing its GTC).

Mayoral Elections

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the consultation paper Changes to the Rules for London Mayoral and Assembly Elections and the Greater London Authority Elections (Amendment) Rules 2003, no instructions to voters will say that in the mayoral election a voter must ensure both a first and second choice.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The prescribed notices for guidance of voters at GLA elections instruct voters to vote once for their first choice and once for their second choice at the mayoral election.
	The consultation paper Changes to the Rules for London Mayoral and Assembly Elections includes a proposal to replace the prescribed text for these notices with a set of criteria governing what the notices should and should not include. Within those criteria, the Greater London returning officer would specify the wording and design of the notices, including what they should say about exercising first and second choice votes.
	After the consultation closes on 10 March, the Government will analyse the responses and decide whether and how to take this proposal forward.

Council of the Isles

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what dates the Council of the Isles has met since its creation; what areas were represented; what decisions were taken; and when the council is proposing to meet again.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The British-Irish Council brings together representatives of the British and Irish Governments, the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. During suspension, UK Ministers represent the interests of Northern Ireland at council meetings.
	The council has met on four occasions at summit level: in London in December 1999, Dublin in November 2001, Jersey in June 2002 and Scotland in November 2002. Ministerial meetings in the environment sector took place in October 2000, February 2002 and January 2003. A ministerial meeting on transport met in December 2000. There was a meeting of drugs Ministers in March 2002.
	The communiques issued after each of these meetings have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the communique from the environment ministerial meeting which took place on 16 January 2003 will be placed in the Libraries of the House.
	The council will next meet in February for a ministerial meeting on drugs in Dublin.